Wasaga Beach, when greed and opportunity collide

Over the last few days I have discussed a few different issues. Although I know Council will not likely listen, these are important issues that I feel our Council should re-focus on. The needs and wants of our citizens have to be put above the needs and wants of our tourist friends and developers.

I have discussed how I think a Downtown BIA could and probably should be one of the solutions that our community could embrace to move forward.

Today however, let’s look at probably one of the most important things our Council needs to take a stand on. (Actually for those who think they know what’s next… no, it’s not taxes!).

Zoning and/ or variances to property standards are a very important issue. They are what I want to discuss today. It has been my observation (over the last 12 or so years that I have paid attention), that those who know how to manipulate and work the system can benefit greatly by requesting and receiving certain changes to the legal status of properties.

I’m not only talking about big property deals with zoning changes and density modifications. No, there are all kinds of little changes considered every month. A “committee of adjustments”, hears those proposed changes and they make recommendations to Council. They recommend accepting some applications and they recommend denying others. Council then votes to allow these single exceptions to rules that every other property owner on that street may still have to follow.

What type of property issues am I talking about? It can be little things for individual properties which may include things like; getting permission to sever a lot, allowing a driveway to be placed outside of standard allowances, allowing a building to encroach closer to a property line than normal, allowing a total percentage of lot coverage to be exceeded, etc…

I have heard personal complaints from people who feel the process treated them unfairly. Some have been denied their applications, while they hear of others in similar situations who had been approved.

Like anything, these people can of course take their complaints to a higher level, but really… most can’t afford that journey.

Our elected officials are there to help you navigate Town Hall. Our mayor could probably help answer procedural issues regarding this. He has experience, as he has been an applicant recently. Mayor Smith has owned property that was subject to some of these types of requests. I understand the requested variances were granted despite some objection from neighbours. I will assume Mayor Smith declared a pecuniary interest. I mention this because as a two time Mayor and a person with personal experience, he should be able to answer your questions about why some applications get approved and some get denied.

If you are applying be sure to reach out to him.

But some ask, how does our elected Council with (to my knowledge) no real background in property law oversee and make decisions that may become precedent setting? Well, they take the advice of the volunteer committee members and if they are unsure they can seek legal guidance. These committee members are appointed by Council at the whim of the Mayor.

However… on big projects, with powerful developers that have deep pockets, these projects can and often do end up at a higher decision making authority. Occasionally, they don’t even waste time at the municipal level. Why?

In recent years, the Province of Ontario often seems to side with developers on these files. For THAT reason, many Councils take the easy road and say, “it would be much too costly to fight this and we would lose anyway”. So, they often vote to allow controversial changes instead of risking a loss.

I SAY THIS IS WRONG. It is a betrayal directed against property owners who deserve to have their elected officials fight for them, if that fight is required.

This situation gets cloudy and the public sometimes is left using the sniff test to gauge the sincerity of the excuses they are offered. This is particularly true if Council Members and Developers have been known to have a personal relationship.

If you were to buy a house in the middle of a block where all of your neighbours also lived in similar single family homes, built on properties obviously zoned residential, it should be safe to assume, that your comfort of living within that neighborhood would continue for generations.

Would it be right then for four of your neighbours to sell their properties to an investor who would then apply to change the zoning to industrial and build a steel foundry on the newly zoned land? No… It was zoned residential when you purchased the property and you should have a reasonable expectation that your biggest investment ever would be protected from such changes. These situations have been avoided for years by having your real estate agents research and reveal things like pending planning issues, zoning of neighbouring properties, etc. It was also a reasonable expectation that no MAJOR changes would happen to your neighborhood.

15 or 20 years ago, it was actually a pretty safe assumption that major changes would not affect your property in residential neighborhoods. But we have experienced a growth in population and governments recognize that people need homes to live in. Builders need property to build those homes.

They are not making any more land, so uses of existing lands need to change.

Developers often drive these big changes. Some of these developers have purchased and held large tracts of land for generations knowing that one day they would build.

Many of these lands on the outskirts of cities have slowly undergone the changes that would become necessary years later. This was often done through municipal planning practices.

In larger metropolitan areas, they started to run out of space and thus, “urban sprawl” was born. Smaller communities outside of the big cities saw farms and forests turned into sub-divisions. Boundaries of cities expanded and agricultural land was engulfed into the planning process. (Think Barrie/ Brampton)

I moved here in 2003. At that time, I never reviewed local pending development maps. I never even enquired about surrounding zoning near my home. I drove along Sunnidale Road and saw fields of wheat and corn with unkept fields mixed in. I assumed the Sunnidale Trails sub-division was just farmland. Soon I discovered that several developers had compiled these properties and plans were made. When the time was right…. Buildings emerged.

As urban sprawl took off, public resistance to converting more of these lands also grew. So governments looked to find alternate solutions.

In my opinion, the next big thing that happened was greed and opportunity collided. It was soon discovered by developers (and government) that large tracts of land right inside cities, urban, sub-urban and metropolitan areas could be used to build homes and make huge profits.

These lands were previous factories, institutional properties like schools, government lands used for a variety of purposes and even recreational properties like golf courses.

In many of these situations, maximum density was the sought after result. Some would say it was in order to maximize population density, others would say it was done for maximum profits.

But this is where Planners should have been forced to work WITH abbuting property owners to ensure these “infilling” changes did not adversely modify peoples long term investments or drastically change their lifestyle. In some industrial neighbourhoods, some may have said it didn’t matter, but soon, residential properties were seeing massive change.

If you lived beside a high school for 40 or 50 years, watching children play in the day and hearing silence at night, should a developer be able to purchase the land and replace the school with a 25 story high rise?

Instead of hypothetical situations let’s look at some very real Wasaga Beach issues. It is my hope to expand on each of these individual issues in coming weeks. Feel free to reach out to me if you have concerns or information to contribute.

Marlwood Golf Course: The residents who purchased homes directly abutting the fairways and greens should have had a reasonable expectation that they would live their lives in this situation as long as they wished. I’m sure they enjoyed the golfers in the day and the wildlife at night. Then, a new property owner decided to eliminate some golf areas and plans to replace them with new roads and building lots.

Wasaga Sands Sub-Division: The residents throughout this entire neighbour deserve the same consideration as those who are fighting in Marlwood. They purchased their homes with a reasonable expectation that they would forever back onto green spaces. In this case, the golf course is no longer operated and the entire property is undergoing changes. Home owners who have large estate lots backing onto lush green space, could soon have a new road behind their home with as many as 6 or 7 smaller homes along their fence line. Home owners who purchased on dead end streets may soon see their roads become a thoroughfare. This is just not fair!

In both of the above situations, home owners actually paid a premium for their lots when new.

Bluewater Sub-Division: People who purchased here purchased where their property actually had a gated community design and feel. One road in, one road out and a substantial fence surrounding the property. Across the road from them now will possibly be a multi density community with the original plans of having three story apartment buildings directly across the street from their homes. In this case, (stated during a public meeting) the developer MAY move the buildings to the other side of the lot, but eventually this will be built in one form or another. Should the three story buildings be permitted directly across from homes that did not expect such density in the zoning?

There are other developments to look at, but let’s change focus and discuss our biggest tourism draw.

Beach One and Two Municipal properties: For many generations these two areas served as access points for local residents and visiting tourists to get to the beach. Parts of the properties are parking, parts have been peppered with stores in the past and even some park space. But Mayor Smith wants to control the change. During his first term as an elected official, he led the drive to purchase millions of dollars of rotting, flooding, condemned properties. His reasoning was to control development.

Several years ago, a proposal was put forward by FRAM to cover beach two with townhouses. That was publicly rejected which was affirmed at the ballot box. However, today the same type of townhouse structures are now being considered to cover entire sections of beach one. To maximize the number of houses that can fit in, they are even eliminating the north half of second street. These changes should NOT be allowed!

Whether it is golf courses closing down and cashing in or municipalities trying to top up their coffers and reward developers, these decisions that adversely affect such large segments of our communities need to be opposed. Sadly, in the cases of Marlwood and Wasaga Sands, the residents are forced to fund their own fight for a just planning result!

I sincerely feel that some changes simply cross that line of right and wrong. This is when I believe Municipal Councils have to try and hold the line for our residents.

Our Municipal governments in many cases say they will simply lose, so there is no sense fighting. I say that’s a cop-out. If the Province wants to modify reasonable property zoning expectations, our Municipal leaders should stand up and lead. They don’t need to be beside its citizens they need to be out front and say… “no matter the cost, we will fight for what’s right!”

But will our Council do this? Do they cherish their relationships with those developers and major property owners more than they value their responsibility to the individual home owner?

I could go on about those relationships, but the important thing today, right now… is for those elected officials to forget their friendships, ignore any possible perceived obligations and just do what is right.

It’s time for Wasaga Beach Council to stand up and protect the home owners of Marlwood, Wasaga Sands, and any other area affected by this “infilling” deception. This is not required infilling. It is GREED!

If it is allowed today, it will be allowed tomorrow. The park in your neighborhood may actually have a developer eyeing it up for 20 homes in 20 years. One day, the Links at New England golf fairways may become home to another 300-400 homes.

It’s time for Wasaga Beach Council to “pony up” and abandon any talk of condos attached to ANY part of municipally controlled property at Beach one and Two. Move your Condos to Main Street where construction environments are more favourable.

For 10 years, I have heard those supporting redevelopment of our old Main Street say, “the main beach is our jewel”. The reality is that a good number of those saying this have been secretly rubbing their grubby hands together waiting for an opportunity to own their own piece of the jewel. In a recent Facebook post, one of the Mayors staunchest advocates brags that he plans to purchase two of the planned Beach Condos.

Do the right thing! Lead the fight to prevent any recreational green space from being converted to pavement and houses. Protect COMPLETE access to “our gem” for future generations.

Lead the way in protecting homeowners who purchased homes on golf courses. Send the developers packing. If required… expropriate the land and create extensive parkland.

With all of our massive tax increases you should have the financial ability to fight these fights. You simply have to stop planning concerts and parties!

Place your focus where it belongs… on the future of Wasaga Beach Residents!